Easy A

Directed by: Will Gluck

Starring: Emma Stone, Amanda Bynes, Aly Michalka, Stanley Tucci, Patricia Clarkson, Lisa Kudrow.

Rating: 6/10

One of the greatest teen movies ever made, Clueless, was an update of Austen's Clueless. Likewise, Easy A is modern take on Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, this update is not half as clever or as relevant as it's predecessor. Olive is a funky, spunky, teenage girl who is well-liked but not really noticed in the social world of her high school. A bookish, witty and quietly hot young woman with a heart of gold, Olive accidentally lands herself in hot water by telling her overbearing best friend (Michalka) that she had lost her virginity. This tiny lie explodes all over school as the leader of a Christian mob (Bynes) spreads the rumour around like wildfire. As a favour to her gay friend, Olive agrees to pretend they have had sex so will stop getting bullied. Soon, she is accepting payment for saying she’s had sex with all the geeks and losers in school who hope that it will make them more appealing to girls. However, it isn’t long until the somewhat well-intentioned Olive finds herself in way over her head.

Easy A is a very entertaining film with some colourful supporting characters and a fantastic ensemble cast. Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci play Olive’s overly liberal, ex-hippy parents and are adorably quirky, yet extremely warm. Both characters give the film some of the depth that the shallow void of high school social politics takes away. Lisa Kudrow is also impressive as the school guidance counsellor who finds herself in a very tricky predicament. But enough about the grown-ups, this film’s young cast are all fantastic too! Emma Stone is a star on the rise since she appeared in Judd Apatow’s Superbad and easily graduates to leading lady playing the complex heroine of the film. She has a wonderful girl-next-door quality and is a likeable balance of attractive and ordinary-looking. She has great comic timing and ability to evoke warmth and chemistry with everyone she shares screen time with.

A major flaw in the film, despite Emma Stone’s great screen presence is that the character of Olive is poorly characterised and her change from confident young outcast to attention-seeking vixen is disarming and, unfortunately takes away from the film’s considerable charm in other departments. Olive is adorable and her change to corset-wearing vamp doesn’t quite gel with the smart, self-assured young women at the start of the film.

There’s something quite old-fashioned about Easy A. It seems to suggest that having teenage sex is shocking. I can’t imagine that there’s a high school in America (or anywhere in the western world) where a girl would become a celebrity because she admits to having lost her virginity. In many ways the film has a lot to say about teenagers and it goes to great pains to steer clear of patronising them, but there is nothing progressive about Olive’s story.

These flaws, though fundamental can’t dampen the high spirits of the film and the charming big heart that it wears on its sleeve. The script is at times eloquent, always hilarious and though it brandishes its John Hughes references a little too heavily at times, it does evoke his intuitive, respectful love of teenagers.

This is an enjoyable teen movie that could have been the next Mean Girls but misses the mark by poor characterisation. It’s still a fun trip to the cinema though!

The Social Network

Written by: Aaron Sorkin

Directed by: David Fincher

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer, Rooney Mara

Rating: 9/10

Don’t be put off by the less than tantalising subject matter of David Fincher’s latest film, The Social Network. If the legal battles of the world’s youngest billionaire don’t sound like your cup of tea, do not deny yourself the chance to see this film. A distinctly unique film in every way, The Social Network balances the machine-gun and biting dialogue of Aaron Sorkin’s (The West Wing) script with the tension and atmospherics of Fincher’s direction in such a way that what is created is truly different to anything you’ve ever seen.

The opening scene of The Social Network, in which we are introduced to our protagonist Mark Zuckerberg, says everything about the character, his motivations and his contradictory personality that you could possibly want to know. He is on a date with Erica (Rooney Mara) and pontificating about the important of getting into the exclusive Finals Clubs at Harvard. The intensity with which he speaks and the determination in his voice speaks volumes about his obsession with success, not for money but for the power and social standing that comes with it. The girl is unimpressed, breaking up with him in a rage over his constant ranting, saying “you’re gonna go through life thinking girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd but that won’t be true. It will be because you’re an asshole”. Interesting setup for film’s hero. Sorkin’s script starts as it means to go on. As the story of Facebook’s inception unfolds it becomes clear that there are no heroes in this story, and no real villains. The hateful rich guys are really the victims and the underdogs are the wrong-doers. Empathy does not come into the equation.

It seems to me that the central discussion in the film is the delicacy of ideas. As technology moves forward, it seems it is not a matter of who is creative enough to push things forward but who will get there first. Sometimes the progress of technology dictates where the ideas will come from and it really was only a matter of time before someone came up with and idea like Facebook. So when the snooty Winklevoss twins approach computer genius Zuckerberg with an idea for a social networking site with the prospect of exclusivity, Zuckerberg hates them for placing such importance on something so shallow, but goes off and creates the site for more social reasons. Friends finding friends; looking up someone you meet in a bar, etc. Despite this “good intentions” perspective, Zuckerberg did, essentially, steal the idea from the Winklevoss’s (or Winklevi, as he refers to them). So when the lawsuits start to fly it’s not a matter of knowing who to root for, it’s just going along for the ethical ride.

It is a testament to the filmmakers that this film is as interesting as it is. It really shouldn’t be as thought-provoking or profound as it is. Aaron Sorkin proved as showrunner of The West Wing that he had the capability to see the good and evil in decisions, a person need not be evil to make a very poor decision. Here, in The Social Network, there are no black and white characters; the morals are decidedly grey making for a very mature take on the courtroom drama.

There is a fine mix of quirky wit and sober menace, with a wonderfully nuanced performance by Jesse Eisenberg who has previously shown great talent in the likes of The Squid and the Whale but lately seems to have been pigeon-holed as the poor man’s Michael Cera. It’s great to see him living up to his potential in a truly memorable performance. Justin Timberlake also impresses as the infinitely charismatic Sean Parker, creator of Napster, who comes on board with Facebook midway through its ascent, causing all sorts of internal ruptures. Credit must also go to Armie Hammer who played both Winklevoss twins with meat-headed vulgarity but also with maturity and humanity.

This is a film with universal appeal, it is simply an excellent film, it cannot be denied. It’s difficult to imagine anybody not getting hopelessly sucked into this story. Come Oscar time, if I don’t see Sorkin’s name in lights, I’m starting a Facebook group called “Like if you think The Academy are idiots”.

 - Charlene Lydon (from: www.frankthemonkey.com)

Real 3-D feature release numbers: the 3-D Revolution of 1953 and 1983 vs 2010

"Mankind has for centuries been moving toward stereoscopic cinema (yet) the bourgeois West is either indifferent or even hostilely ironical toward the problems of stereoscopic cinema"
Sergei Eisenstein, 1946

House of Wax (1953)

A current trend is advertisement of 3-D stereoscopic movies billed as 'Shot in 3-D' and billed as 'Also available in 2-D', besides 2-D films now being called 'in 2-D with normal ticket prices'.  This is a worrying development but historically speaking a predictable one.  Everybody knows there have been two major 3-D film bubbles in the past; in 1953/54 and in 1983/84, but not many people actually know why these 3-D bubbles burst and did not herald the era of 3-D film making.  What makes it difficult to compare the historic bubbles is the wildly different technical abilities of the different years, the difference in marketing, in targeting and in public spending power.  There has also been a feature film production and theatre runtime inflation: in the 1950's many fewer films were produced overall and they were playing in cinemas for a longer period of time as well.

Taza, Son of Conchise (1954)

An updated version of the 3-D Filmography - the biggest and most accurate 3-D stereoscopic film list published anywhere - means a great chance to update the statistics.  After updating the 3-D filmography Gary Palmer, writer and editor of the list, made a very interesting remark about James Cameron's latest press statement which gave me the idea for combining the list, the statistics and the knowledge to come to a coherent image of what is going on with 3-D film and what may happen with it next.  What Gary pointed at was James Cameron saying he wanted the 3-D in Avatar - and in his future 3-D and 4-D films - to be unobtrusive and so much so that people will forget they are watching a 3-D film altogether (a bit hard with 4-D films, but there you go).  So then what is the point? 

When you pay a premium ticket price for a 3-D showing, you want to see 3-D and be reminded you are watching 3-D; I can't tell you how often I have heard people say they like this or that 3-D film, but were disappointed with the 3-D because it was too flat or 'was never used': coming out of the screen in an obvious fashion.  So that leaves us with the question: is today's 3-D content with its stereo window-inward quality really better than yesterday's 3-D that used much more of the negative parallax space and is this more subtle content the reason 3-D appears to have more staying power this time around?

Monsters VS Aliens (2009)

There is a lot of PR wah-wah about why today's 3-D is so much better than that of the 1950's or 1980's, but of course the complete truth is never spoken.  It would be too uncomfortable to discuss technologically sound 3-D projection in the 1980's or more grown up 3-D film content in the 1950's and so journalists keep on copy-pasting the original blurb put out by Real-D and James Cameron 3 years ago.  Shame on the critic who claims 'Piranha 3D' or 'My Bloody Valentine 3D' are better technically or creatively than 'House of Wax' or 'Dial M for Murder'!

Polarized projection: from 1952 onward

3-D Price Premium

There was mostly no ticket price premium for 3-D films in 1953 and 1983 and thus the studios had to carry the extra cost of their 3-D productions.  When attendance numbers went down, the 3-D revolution was over as quickly as it started in those two occasions.  Today, studios and distributors have merged, own the multiplexes in which their films are shown and have a strong presence in the TV and DVD side of distribution.  Because of this, the 3-D premium at the box office and the 3-D BluRay price premium is keeping today's 3-D revolution alive and well.  If 3-D ticket prices are forced down by lower attendance, 3-D movie production will be heavily reduced, or, more likely, the premium price for 3-D film viewing will become the standard for 2-D film attendance as well - a scenario where 3-D film production will go down as well because 2-D film will always remain cheaper to produce.

There may well be another reason for today's film studios' push for 3-D: it moves the bulk spending from post production back to the principal photography - back to the studios.  This is, because once shot or rendered, 3-D film can barely be 'fixed' in post - only very minimally so - before heavy distortion of the image occurs.  So the power is back in the hands of the DOP and camera makers.

3-D Filming in 1983 using the Arri 3-D lens adapter

3-D Film Favourites: Horror, thriller and Western

Not many people realize this, but in 1953/54 most 3-D films released were dramas and Westerns (30%).  This number was closely followed by action and western movies (20%) and horror and thriller movies (17%).  As the 3-D bubble collapsed in 1954, the same amount of 3-D movies as planned during the current stereoscopic craze were cancelled in 3-D and shot in 2-D.  In most cases, CinemaScope had little to do with this as these films were pretty much all still released in 1.85 format.  The real interesting question lies with the kinds of movies released in 3-D in this era and whether they were suitable for the 3-D process - and thus whether this might have had anything to do with the collapse of 3-D film in 1955.  I just don't buy the argument that it was purely technical issues with 35mm film projector synchronizing, alignment (weave) and the cardboard polarizing glasses.  This argument falls apart when the 1983/84 3-D boom is considered with its single lens / single film strip polarized colour film projection.

Polarized 3-D projection before Digital Cinema

In the current 4-year 3-D film release growth of 2008-2012 the emphasis of type of film lies heavily on animation (38%), followed by horror / thriller (22%) and sci-fi / fantasy (17%).  Of course the high numbers for animation have a lot to do with the current lower age and family-oriented target for film releases and the fact that CGI animation production finds a natural form in stereoscopic 3-D presentation - the step to go 3-D is relatively speaking most easy with CGI animation production.  In this way, animation has actually been a large driving force for the current 3-D cinema release trend, but the number of animation film releases in 3-D cannot, realistically, be put against other historic numbers, as animation production is completely different from what it was 30 and 60 years ago.  What is a real historic benchmark are the horror / thriller and sci-fi / fantasy film numbers (one can call sci-fi / fantasy the present day Western and romance / comedy has been moved into animation).  In these numbers there is a visible shift from horror / thriller to sci-fi / fantasy as the 3-D boom continues into 2012 - a shift to a much larger family audience (more movie tickets and 3-D BluRays to be sold) and a shift away from cheap thrills, towards grand spectacle.  However, grown up drama, war, documentary and comedy are still not in the 3-Dimensional picture and film makers continue the hundred-year trend of not taking 3-D film serious when it comes to content.

A note on 2-D to 3-D converted titles then: this is a practice impossible in the 1950's and 1980's.  16-26% of the 3-D releases of the years 2009-2012 are dimensionalized 2-D to 3-D conversions and although they wouldn't have existed as 3-D films before 2006 (Nightmare before Christmas), they are in the end still 3-D film releases.  Quality of the 3-D is not debated here.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (2006)

Scheduled 3-D stereoscopic feature film releases:

1953:
45 titles released (Total of 1,845, of which 2.5% in 3-D)
16 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation:  0
Horror / Thriller:  6
Action / Western action:  8
Documentary:  2
Sci-Fi / Fantasy:  2
Music/Dance:  4
Drama / Western drama:  16
War: 1
Adult: 1
RomCom: 5


1954:
19 titles released
24 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation: 0
Horror / Thriller: 5
Action / Western action: 5
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 2
Music/Dance: 1
Drama / Western drama: 3
War: 0
Adult: 0
RomCom: 3


1983:
17 titles released (Total of 3,122, of which 0.5% in 3-D)
4 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation: 0
Horror / Thriller: 4
Action / Adventure: 3
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 4
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 2
War: 0
Adult: 3
RomCom: 1


1984:
7 titles released
1 titles announced but not released in 3-D

Animation: 0
Horror / Thriller: 2
Action / Adventure: 0
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 2
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 0
War: 0
Adult: 2
RomCom: 1


2008:
9 titles

Animation: 2
Horror / Thriller: 2
Action: 0
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 1
Music/Dance: 1
Drama: 2
War: 0
Adult: 1
RomCom: 0


2009:
37 titles (21 minus animation) (Total of 6,522, of which 0.5% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 6

Animation: 15
Horror / Thriller: 8
Action: 1
IMAX / Docu: 3
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 4
Music/Dance: 3
Drama: 0
War: 0
Adult: 3
RomCom: 0


2010:
77 titles (48 minus animation) (Total of 7,735, of which 1% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 20

Animation: 29
Horror / Thriller: 22
Action: 3
IMAX / Docu: 3
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 11
Music/Dance: 5
Drama: 1
War: 0
Adult: 3
RomCom: 0


2011:
43 titles (28 minus animation) (Total of 3,933, of which 1% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 8

Animation: 15
Horror / Thriller: 6
Action: 5
IMAX / Docu: 1
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 12
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 4
War: 0
Adult: 0
RomCom: 0


2012:
6 titles (3 minus animation) (Total of 1,436, of which 0.5% in 3-D)
Dimensionalized: 0

Animation: 3
Horror / Thriller: 0
Action: 1
IMAX / Docu: 0
Sci-Fi / Fantasy: 1
Music/Dance: 0
Drama: 0
War: 1
Adult: 0
RomCom: 0

























So can we draw conclusions from these numbers?  One can say something about types of film and suitability for the 3-D process but a better perspective is gained when 2-D film genre releases are set against the 3-D numbers.  The numbers appear to be roughly equal in percentages, so one can state that 3-D film release mirror 2-D film releases for genre, or that most 3-D film producers decide to 'go 3-D' mid-production of a 2-D film. 

In absolute numbers, the number of 3-D releases has jumped up from 0.5% to 1% (no 3-D revolution yet) and when animation and 3-D conversion titles are subtracted from the present day totals, the number of 3-D feature films released in 1953 is still more than double that of today's 3-D resurgence on a year-by-year basis.  Does that really matter though if today's 3-D boom is a continuous one?  The infrastructure for incidental 3-D film release is now in place and unless all the Real-D, Dolby3D and Xpand projector adapters are all on hire or on short-term maintenance contracts, releasing a film, or parts of it, in 3-D will remain a real option for future film producers.

Alexander Lentjes is available as Consultant or Production member for your 3-D Stereoscopic animation or live-action television or feature film production.  More information and Contact details at www.the3drevolution.com/contact.html

Phantom's Cinerama 80's Horror

The 80's was a time of great hyperbole; the clothes, the music, the horror movies. Artifice was hip, and it reflected in the grandiosity of the decade's horror films. Subtlety wasn't the key...no Blair Witch Project in the 80's. It was a decade of in yer face scary monsters, blood and good-natured horrific fun.

This year as part of the Screen Cinema's annual Scream Cinema Monster Mash, Phantom FM are inviting listeners to vote for their favourite horror film. The choices are delectable:


Evil Dead 2
The Shining
The Lost Boys
Poltergeist
Hellraiser
Friday the 13th
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

My money's on The Shining but my heart belongs to Poltergeist. There's a movie that deserves to be on the big screen!

Last year's Scream Cinema Monster Mash played such gems as Child's Play, The Thing and a surprise film which turned out to be Frank Darabont's The Mist, screened in black and white as he had originally intended. Superb! Hopefully this year's lineup will be as fun and varied as 2009.

So get on over to Phantom FM Cinerama and get voting (for Poltergeist)!

Seeya at the Scream Cinema!!

The Death & Life of Charlie St. Cloud

Directed by: Burr Steers  

Witten by: Craig Pearce, Lewis Colick  

Starring: Zac Efron, Amanda Crew, Charlie Tahan, Kim Basinger, Ray Liotta

Rating: 3/10 

The Death and Life of Charlie St Cloud had the potential to be a pretty interesting, dark story of mental illness and grief which is unfortunately wrapped in the swaddling of a cheesy, majorly “Disneyfied” disaster of a script. Charlie St Cloud (Efron) and his little brother Sam (Tahan) are best friends who are torn apart by a tragic car accident. Charlie survives, Sam doesn’t, but soon after his death Charlie starts to meet Sam’s ghost every evening at sunset to play baseball. Five years later, Charlie is working in the graveyard where Sam is buried and completely unable to move on with his life, foregoing a college scholarship in favour of hanging out with his dead brother.

The film is shot expertly and is remarkably easy on the eye. Shot around Vancouver, Canada, the idyllic seaside town is beautiful and evokes and sense of perfection which gradually becomes a tragic trap in the second act. Director, Burr Steers keeps the story ticking along well and the rare moments of doom and gloom are affecting at times. However, the major problem with this film is in its outrageously sappy script. Think Nicolas Sparks crossed with The Ghost Whisperer and you’re halfway there. In fact, this film would be more comfortable on the Hallmark Channel than in the cinema. As the story twists and turns, you can stay on board to a certain extent given the fantastical concept but towards the end, the writers take things a little too far. I don’t know how the story ended in the book but the final twenty minutes of the film are inconceivably lame.

If this is Zac Efron’s way of trying to become a “serious actor” he’s going to have to try harder. His acting is actually pretty good. As he proved in last year’s likeable Me & Orson Welles he has fantastic screen presence and is well able for the high drama and the tender moments. The camera loves him (and his wet/naked torso, which is highlighted at every opportunity, proving the “feminine gaze” is alive and well). Unfortunately there is little to work with here as the script is so terrible that no actor could make it seem any less vomit-inducing. 

The Death and Life of Charlie St Cloud is a supernatural drama which had the potential to be touching, but is far too soft for its own good. Any darkness in the story is usurped by the fairytale ending and the unwillingness of the filmmakers to take Efron’s fanbase out of their tween comfort zone.

-          Charlene Lydon

TRAILER: